Clicking on the kitty will refresh the page to the very latest articles.

Friday, May 07, 2010

Roman Polanski Case Is Killing Lots Of Trees

Geneva, Switzerland—Last November I was privileged to be working in Geneva, and Lausanne Switzerland on a death penalty case. The Roman Polanski case was just getting started. Since then, they have killed an entire forest to make the paper to argue this case in two countries.

I learned that my Swiss friends were all angry that their country would dare meddle in the decades old foreign case. They were even angrier that Polanski was invited to Switzerland for a film award and arrested. It was somewhat like arresting a government diplomat.

The Swiss are known for their refusal to interfere with other countries legal squabbles. This whole affair has been handled very un-Swiss like by the Swiss government.

That being said I wanted in the worse way to investigate and report the state of this entire mess while I was there. That was impossible since I was up to my ears in the other matter. The other matter deserved my entire attention.

I wrote about the Polanski odyssey trying to reveal as much as I could under the circumstances. I have been blessed with contributions of information and such from readers. I’ve not seen fit to do more than let them post news articles and argument that for the most part supports Polanski as comments on the earlier stories. .

I’d love to have the funding to put together the, end all reveal of this entire debacle. I want to spend time in the Swiss and California courts covering this case exclusively until it’s finished.

Today I received the contribution of a recent filing of the Los Angeles County D.A. and will post it. I only wish I had every document from every court from every position to, publish.

I don’t hide my belief that Polanski has been punished enough and is the victim now of political grandstanding and judicial misconduct. He’s not seen the grave of his beautiful young wife who was murdered by the Manson Family in over 40 years. I say enough is enough.

Samantha Geimer, the now middle aged woman who Polanski was accused of molesting as a child has begged prosecutors to let the matter rest. She has been ignored.

Nobody but Polanski and Geimer know for sure what really happened and the case never was tested by a jury. We don't know what kind of "help" Geimer had with her statements to police. Was her statement colored by a parental effort to get a big civil court payday? We will never know.

Polanski pled guilty to a somewhat soft penalty and then the judge reneged on that plea agreement. Everyone conveniently forgets that in Europe the age of consent is a lot younger than California. In several American states there would never been a prosecution.

Polanski served time in the Chino State prison and was released only to learn he was about to get a much longer term. Polanski is a slight man and being sent to prison as a celebrity with a child molester label is horrifying to say the least. Polanski fled to France. France refused the request for extradition.

A huge question I ask is where have prosecutors been in the case of thousands of teen and pre-teen girls that have gotten pregnant? Rarely is there prosecutions in those cases. Is Polanski more important because he generates more headlines for prosecutors?

Polanski suffered grievously as a child under Nazi occupation, his native Poland was then occupied by the Communists and the lad to flee once again from the Bolsheviks to France. Despite all Polanski has become a legendary film maker who has entertained millions of people all over the world with his artistry.

In keeping with my effort to inform my readers I’m posting the entire brief filed by prosecutors. I will publish whatever I can under the circumstances. Oh what I’d give to have the funding to do this right! Filing opposing release of Gunson testimony

According to www.fulldisclosure.net LA DA Steve Cooley has refused to prosecute the pedophiles and child molesters who work in the Catholic Church.

So there is a question for me why is District Attorney Steve Cooley going after Roman Polanski now, but yet will not go after the Church's sexual molesting Predator Priests and the Bishops who cover up?

Could it be if the LA DA Steve Cooley is receiving campaign money from the Church, that when the priests sexually molest innocents he might turn a blind cheek?

And does the LA DA think the taxpayer’s dollars are his, that he can use foreign celebrities like Roman Polanski - to fan the media in Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley's own personal campaign in seeking higher office in California.

And who would benefit from Steve Cooley becoming California's Attorney General anyway?

The answer is - only those who are favored such as rich California institutions and their sexual molesting employees, who may be shielded from Justice if they come bearing gifts.

If the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office is going to hold people accountable for sexual crimes, then there should be no distinction and discriminatory measures in who is selected for prosecution, and to whom you turn a blind eye.

On May 10 2010 there is a court hearing in County of Los Angeles Judge Peter Espinoza's Courtroom over the Los Angeles Prosecutor Roger Gunson's sealed testimony obtained from him early this year. Polanski's lawyers want to send a copy to Swiss Authorities.

Swiss say they don't need it to resolve the issue of whether the extradition request is allowed under the treaty with the U.S. as they presume prosecutors seeking extradition requests are telling the truth. I believe Polanski's lawyers have objected to the Swiss Authorities assumption.

In addition the people of California have a right to know whether LA's current District Attorney, Steve Cooley, who is running for state Attorney General, made false statements in the extradition request of Roman Polanski to Swiss Authorities last year..

Los Angeles former prosecutor Roger Gunson's testimony reportedly contradicts the current DA Steve Cooley. If Cooley made false representations, California voters have a right to know this.

Why would the 1977 Judge Rittenband after ruling that Roman Polanski was not a mentally disordered sex offender want Polanski to be evaluated again psychiatrically for 90 days before the Judge would commit to 90 days being the final sentence, or before committing to a different sentence?

If the Santa Monica Judge intended to commit to a different sentence after the 90 day evaluation, this is the equivalent of giving Roman Polanski two sentences.

But more importantly the Judge ordering a second 90 day psychiatric evaluation of Polanski was redundant since the Judge had already ruled that Polanski was not a mentally disordered sex offender on Sept 19th 1977, the very same day he ordered the 90 day in depth diagnostic evaluation.

It would seem that the 90 days “evaluation” was in fact the Santa Monica Judge’s intended full sentence for Roman Polanski, which is what the original Los Angeles prosecutor's Roger Gunson stated in the documentary movie Polanski Wanted and Desired, and is backed up by his sealed testimony and other lawyers testimony. The Prosecutor and the lawyers also stated in the movie, Polanski Wanted & Desired that the Sept 19th 1977 was a staged Santa Monica hearing where the Judge and all the lawyers knew the outcome before the proceeding occurred. The proceeding was a show for the press the lawyers stated.

Los Angeles Prosecutor Roger Gunson also wanted the Santa Monica Judge removed from the case early on but was stopped by Los Angeles prosecutors who were his superiors. This is also part of the sealed testimony.

The first link below is the County of Los Angeles DA’s brief in opposition to the unsealing of Los Angeles Prosecutor Roger Gunson's testimony.

Roman Polanski's statement that Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley revived attempts to sentence him last year just to get political votes seems true. According to http://www.fulldisclosure.net Los Angeles DA Steve Cooley has refused to prosecute pedophiles and child molesters who work in the Catholic Church.

So why is the LA DA Steve Cooley chasing across the world after Roman Polanski now, if he is not prosecuting local California Church’s sexual molesting predator Priests and those Government Officials that cover up the sexual molestation crimes at California’s institutions?

If the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office is going to hold people accountable for sexual crimes, then there should be no distinction or discriminatory measures in place, or false extradition requests to Swiss Authorities, where Roman Polanski is selected for prosecution again after 33 years, but not local government sexual molesters or the Church’s sexual molesters, who get a free pass with the Los Angeles District Attorney turning a blind eye.

This prosecution may be ALL about Steve Cooley wanting to advance his political career at the expense of Roman Polanski and his family’s life.

Other County of Los Angeles Santa Monica Judges have also advanced their careers similarly by having sexual assault victims assaulted and battered in the Santa Monica Courthouse. For their service to the State in covering up institutionalized sexual molestation abuses the California Governor Davis promotes them to become California Appeal Court Justices.

Roman Polanski is determined to assure that the United States' extradition request submitted to the Swiss Government is based on a complete and truthful statement of the facts of his case. Presently, it is not.

Indeed, just today, Swiss officials have announced that "Switzerland is still awaiting supplementary information from the Americans [and ...] have not received it."

This statement directly contradicts representations made by the District Attorney's Office to the California court this past Monday.

The fact is that the formal extradition request, prepared for the U.S. Justice Department by the L.A. District Attorney, does not disclose that the original trial judge in the case, Laurence Rittenband, committed that Mr. Polanski's term in prison, undergoing what the Judge said publicly was a "diagnostic study," would be his entire sentence in the case.

All we ask on Mr. Polanski's behalf is that the Swiss be informed of this fact by the United States, a fact confirmed by every prosecutor in charge of this case up to now:

In his 2005 interview for the documentary film about the case, retired Deputy District Attorney Roger Gunson (who was the lead prosecutor on the matter for more than 20 years) stated that the trial judge "had promised that the 90-day diagnostic study was going to be his sentence."

Mr. Gunson later confirmed in his Declaration under oath, last year, that: "After Mr. Polanski's plea in August 1977, Judge Rittenband informed both Mr. Polanski's lawyer, Douglas Dalton, and me that Mr. Polanski would be sent to Chino State Prison under Penal Code Section 1203.03 as his punishment. At that time, I told Judge Rittenband that the diagnostic study was not designed to be used as a sentence, but Judge Rittenband said: 'I'm going to do it anyhow.'"

Mr. Gunson affirmed those statements in his recent conditional examination that unfortunately remains sealed. The District Attorney has fought to keep this testimony secret.

In his February 2005 interview for the same documentary, current Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney Richard Doyle, who took over the Polanski prosecution from Mr. Gunson and investigated the facts at the request of District Attorney Steve Cooley in 2002 stated: "There were many things that Judge Rittenband did that were inappropriate in my view in this case from what I have been told, such as his use of the 1203.03, not for diagnostic purposes but for punishment. [...] His promise was that he would not sentence him to prison after the 1203.03 was completed."

Contrary to the District Attorney's public contention that our statements about this are "baseless and reckless," in fact, they have been confirmed by the prosecutors in their own office.

None of this was disclosed to the Swiss in the extradition request.

We can only suspect that the reason for the District Attorney's deliberate omission of this information from the extradition request is that he expects that this undeniable fact, if disclosed by the United States to the Swiss, would cause them to conclude that extradition is not legally justified.

More at: http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Roman-Polanskis-US-Legal-Team-Calls-for-Full-Disclosure-in-Extradition-Request-1259285.htm

Two incompatible Los Angeles Judicial decisions made simultaneously on Sept 19th 1977 kept Roman Polanski’s sentence vague & ambiguous, enabling Los Angeles prosecutors in Sept 2009 to misinform the Swiss Authorities as to Polanski remaining sentence which at worst is 48 days and at best is nothing. And even if 48 days is outstanding it is not 6 months, the magic number for extradition.

Going back to the 70’s, why would the original Santa Monica Judge, Laurence J. Rittenband after ruling that Roman Polanski was not a mentally disordered sex offender immediately after rule that Polanski should be evaluated again psychiatrically for another 90 days in California State’s prison facility Chino,

before that Santa Monica Judge would commit to the 90 day psychiatric evaluation being the final sentence for Roman Polanski, or before the Santa Monica Judge would commit to, and reveal a different sentence?

This really does not make any sense logically, and the 90 day stay at Chino should have been the entire sentence.

If Judge Rittenband in 1977 intended to commit to another & different sentence, after psychiatrically evaluating Roman Polanski a second time for 90 days this would be the same as giving Roman Polanski two sentences.

The second sentence would also be dependent on the first sentence's outcome, which as it turned out in Polanski’s case was excellent, he was released early. But even so that did not make any difference to the Santa Monica Judge Rittenband who said the prison report was a whitewash.

Then the same Santa Monica Judge wanted to illegally take away Roman Polanski’s right to fight deportation through coercion in the Judge’s second sentencing of him that was due to take place on Feb 1st 1978.

The most important thing here is that the Santa Monica Judge ordering on Sept 19th 1977 that Polanski must go to Chino prison for a second psychiatric evaluation, is diametrically opposed to the Judge’s first ruling at the same hearing that Polanski was not a mentally disordered sex offender.

Because if the Judge found that Polanski was not a mentally disordered sex offender then no further 90 day psychiatric evaluation was needed at Chino Prison.

Maybe the original Santa Monica Judge needed an evaluation himself since the two rulings he made at the same time are more than at odds with each other, they are incompatible.

For the Judge’s two conflicting decisions from Sept 19th, 1977 See Page 36 and Page 48 of the Los Angeles prosecutors filings at:

I did not know that the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office had jurisdiction over sexual assault cases in Paris that occurred 28 years ago, and of course it is a good diversion to the Judicial & Prosecutorial misconduct in Polanski's 1977 case and the current prosecutorial misconduct now in disguising the exact sentence that is left.

California Statutes and laws have been applied in a discriminatory manner and would not pass Constitutional muster.

However the Judges & Federal Courts don’t seem to care, because the Constitution seems to be operating out of Plato’s Cave within the shadows of Justice, which is not real Justice.

In Roman Polanski’s 1977 criminal case Santa Monica Judge Laurence J. Rittenband used California Penal Code Section 1203.03 as Polanski’s sentence even though it was not designed to be a sentence.

In Aug 1977 when the Los Angeles prosecutor Roger Gunson told the Judge that Penal Code # 1203.03 was not designed to be a sentence the Santa Monica Judge replied: “I’m going to do it anyhow.”

Later on Sept 19th 1977 there was a fake hearing at the Santa Monica Courthouse where the Judge and all parties knew the outcome in advance, but not the public or the press.

Then after Polanski served his Penal Code 1203.03 sentence and was let out early from Chino prison with the recommendation of no further prison time, the Santa Monica Judge unfairly wanted to sentence Polanski again to a second sentence.

In another case concerning police cover up of a sexual assault case at the same Santa Monica Courthouse in 1998, the Santa Monica Judge used the California Government Code Requirement 910 to hold a fake hearing where the victim of sexual molestation and police cover up of it could not prevail because of that California Government 910 Statute.

The Judge at this STAGED HEARING, also allowed the defendant police officer to control the hearing, and also permitted undocumented police to be stationed in and around the courtroom, who later assaulted and battered and falsely arrest her in retaliation for reporting police cover up of her sexual assault complaint against an instructor at one of California’s Colleges.

Another purpose of the fake hearing at a California Courthouse was to launder College Officials & police non-testimonial activities, their prior crimes against the female who had been sexually molested by a California Instructor on the College campus, and to win judgment plus intimidate and deter her forcefully - from going any further.

As there have been at least two fake hearings at the Santa Monica Courthouse, where the Santa Monica Judges use the California Statutes to violate the People’s civil rights with impunity when there is no integrity or due process of law, and where the California Statutes are used for a purposes not intended on their face.

And because the Federal Courts assist in this State of Affairs by guaranteeing that California people’s civil rights will continue to be violated with impunity, with decisions such as Pony v. County of Los Angeles which has and will terminate civil rights cases in California

See Link below:http://openjurist.org/433/f3d/1138/pony-v-county-of-los-angeles

Note: Pony v. County of Los Angeles 433 F3d 1138 (9th Circ. 2006) was written by Judge Jay S. Bybee who became a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge after ratifying the Torture Memos for the Bush Administration

For these reasons Roman Polanski has served his time, California Authorities and Statutes are not to be trusted in how they are being applied at the Santa Monica Courthouse in sexual assault cases , and Roman Polanski should be released as soon as possible by the Swiss Authorities so he can go home to France to his wife, family and friends.

If Charlotte Lewis who claims she was abused by Roman Polanski went ahead and worked in the movie Pirates and for Polanski after she claims she had been sexually abused by him, why does Charlotte want to sell him out and renege on the deal now?

If they had sex and she said nothing at the time, isn't she breaching the terms of their agreement selling Roman Polanski out and betraying him so Charlotte can have another 15 minutes of fame on top of her first 15 minutes of fame and financial gain that she obtained fraudulently?

All so Charlotte could have her cake in Pirates and eat it too! At the expense of Polanski.

No wonder she wanted to meet the Los Angeles District Attorney because they do have something in common.

But as Charlotte made her bed so she could be in the movie Pirates, then she should lie in her bed, because she could have said no and walked away from Pirates. No-one FORCED her to be in that MOVIE apart from herself. She seems to have prostituted herself in order to be in that movie.

I may have some empathy for Charlotte if she had walked away and had not worked for Polanski after being allegedly sexually propositioned & abused by him but that is apparently not what happened.

Walking Away from Pirates and Polanski would have at least shown that Charlotte Lewis was not prostituting her body to gain a part in the movie

Yes it is sad if that is what it would take for Charlotte to be in Polanski's movie, but perhaps for certain projects in this artistic medium they need more than just a platonic relationship to be really inspired, or maybe if the director is attracted to the actress then it would not work out or be inspiring for either the director or the movie if the attraction was not returned obviously. But if the actress does not have mutual attraction and begins to succumb to sex in exchange for the part in the movie this is where things go wrong. Especially if they are saying yes so as to be in the movie, but not really yes to the man. And if Charlotte just says yes - how is Polanski supposed to know she means yes to the movie but not yes to him for eternity?

And if Charlotte Lewis had not said yes when she meant no she would not have had a movie career or the power to harm him now.

If Charlotte did have sex with Polanski for a part in Pirates, said nothing, got the part and is upset about it now, what a betrayer, a real snake in the grass she is. She got her side of the bargain and now wants to stab him in the back for her fraud and prostitution.

As Robert Harris the author of The Ghost Writer Polanski's latest movie states, there is a lynch mob mentality in the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office presently.

This has been in operation a few years. It was certainly present in the Los Angeles prosecution of Phillip Spector.

The lynch mob mentality is assisted in California by the Los Angeles Judges allowing Los Angeles prosecutors to dig up and use all your ex-girlfriends or boyfriends or acquaintances against you, and if any happen to say that you pointed a gun at their head 20 years ago. The Los Angeles prosecutors can use that witness information against you at any time, even if not true.

The logic of the Los Angeles Courts allowing all these witnesses to crap royally on you in a Court of "Law" is faulty since witness testimony is driven by many things that does not always include the truth, and 5 people saying you pointed a gun at their head twenty years ago does nothing to prove you in fact killed someone with a gun in February 2003. But it will certainly help a naïve jury to bring in their guilty verdict.

And it is also true to say that 5 witnesses who did not witness any murder, does not and should not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

In addition and not to forget that the Star witness for the prosecution in Phil Spector’s case Brazilian Chauffeur Adriano De Souza was paid handsomely for his witness testimony by the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office with a US residency and forgiving De Souza’s crime that he was illegally working in U.S.A. which makes De Souza’s testimony less credible.

In Polanski’s case - Put up a press camera and actress Charlotte Lewis who was in Polanski's Pirates movie will come, especially if the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office pays her not for her “sexual “ services, but instead for her “witness” services.

So perhaps someone paid Charlotte Lewis to come to Los Angeles, even though the press or her lawyer made a point of saying that Charlotte had flown to Los Angeles on her own dime.

Would Charlotte pay her own fare to Los Angeles to meet the L.A.D.A for an altruistic purpose? I doubt it.

If Charlotte did not have sex with Roman Polanski for nothing, and gained fame and fortune by remaining silent about the activity which only now was apparently distasteful to her, it would follow that the only reason that she is not silent now is to gain twice financially for her own part in the transaction.

Charlotte is useful as a star witness against Roman Polanski so that the Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley can nail a stale crime against Polanski, and use Polanski’s demise for his quest to become the next Attorney General of California.

In regards to Michael Douglas’s bluntness he is up against some sadness himself as his son just received a jail sentence. A tragic occurrence for such a successful and famous family, and any family.

As far as Michael Douglas’s wish to not sign a petition for Roman Polanski's release at Cannes Film Festival, I believe that ordinarily Michael Douglas would not have passed it off by saying that Polanski is “somebody who did break the law.”

Michael Douglas’s statement is not well thought out given that MIchael Douglas is ignoring the Judicial and Prosecutorial corruption in Roman Polanski’s Santa Monica Courthouse case, and the fact that Polanski served his sentence at Chino Prison and that the Santa Monica Judge wanted to give Polanski two sentences and coerce him into deportation illegally.

Michael Douglas is the producer along with Saul Zaentz of the Academy Award movie “One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest” from 1975

starring Jack Nicholson, Danny Devito, Vincent Schiavelli, directed by Milos Forman, which movie did have a huge impact and perhaps should be viewed again as it does dramatize rebellion and insubordination against oppressive bureaucracy and an insistence upon rights, self-expression, and freedom.

The movie should be viewed also from the standpoint of Polanski's case, because Roman Polanski did in fact fly over the Cuckoo’s Nest and back to Paris, France in February 1978.

The topic concerns honest contracts versus dishonest bait and switch contracts which were made with Roman Polanski, and which dishonest contracts betrayed him.

This topic is also about County of Los Angeles Judges and District Attorneys as well as 16 year olds or even 13 year olds tossing integrity into the wind & prostituting their integrity for fame, glory financial gain and in the case of County Officials such as Judges and Los Angeles District Attorneys or prosecutors the desire for promotions to higher office is the temptation which serves to undermine their integrity also.

So if you want to be a 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals Judge and you ratify the Torture Memos for the Bush Administration you will certainly get your promotion.

In the case of the deceased Santa Monica Judge Rittenband and English actress Charlotte Lewis. both abandoned their principles to gain fame, glory, press at Roman Polanski's expense,

through pretending to make agreements with Roman Polanski whether written or otherwise, and then after Polanski performs his side of the bargain the contract was broken by those who had initially agreed.

In both cases Roman Polanski complied with what Judge Laurence J. Rittenband and Charlotte Lewis seemed to want initially, but both did not play straight with Polanski, and both betrayed him.

The current DA Steve Cooley who is seeking higher office to be Attorney General of California. is also betraying Roman Polanski now, for the same reasons, for the District Attorney's fame and glory,

and who wants to extradite Polanski to California under false pretenses and who is not providing the correct and complete information to the Swiss Federal Justice Department about how much sentence is left for Polanski to serve which should be for the time he already served at Chino Penitentiary California in the 1970’s.

As far as the Swiss contemplating returning Roman Polanski to Los Angeles County they should think again, and release him as soon as possible, since Polanski would not get any fairness in a California Court, and didn't the first time around, three decades ago.

In addition and currently the survey of the inmate data in Los Angeles County jails demonstrated that about half the inmates - thousands of persons - were held by County of Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca under false and deliberately misleading records. Here's some links detailing this sorry state of affairs.

Wild Child; Interview; Charlotte LewisStuart White in Los Angeles8 August 1999The News of the World

I thought I was grown up at 14… but I fell into clutches of older men and almost ruined my life. Movie beauty Charlotte Lewis tells a harrowing tale every girl should heed.

FOR almost 20 years British Hollywood star Charlotte Lewis has been haunted by a secret past. She knew it would catch up with her one day. Now she is getting it off her chest. At 14 she slept with men for money. Quite simply, the girl who found fame and fortune with superstar Eddie Murphy in The Golden Child was once a call girl.

It seems impossible to believe, as we sit in the elegant surroundings of the Los Angeles Mondrian hotel, that this stunning English Rose could have stooped so low.But she wants to tell all, how she went from hooker to Hollywood. She believes it will be a lesson to others, but more important a release for herself.

Her darkest days came at the ridiculously young age of 14. She was still at Catholic Secondary School in London, when she went through a rebellious phase, playing truant and chasing the night-time glamour of London’s West End.

Even now she finds it hard to face the truth. You suspect she has even lied to herself as a protective measure.

CHARLOTTE, now 31, says LSD and marijuana were at the root of her wild ways. She didn’t know what she was doing. Yet it is clear she went back for more time and again.

“One morning I woke to find a pile of Pounds 50 notes next to the bed,” she says. “I couldn’t remember quite what had happened, but when I saw the money I knew what was going on and felt sick.” The older man who had just left her bed assumed she was an experienced vice girl. Charlotte insists she was drugged and had her drinks spiked by an older woman she thought of as a friend, not realising she was a cunning madam who pandered to perverts to feed her own drug habit.

Yet even AFTER she discovered this, young Charlotte ‘entertained’ a succession of other men through that ‘lost summer’ of 1982.

“I don’t how many men might have had sex with me for money,” she finally admits. “I was in a permanent haze. I was 14 and looking for excitement, yet I was so naive. I’d go out with my so-called friend to a nightclub then everything would become blurry. I’d have a vague notion of talking to some man, and my friend saying, ‘You HAVE to be nice to him’.

“Obviously she was making deals with these people, taking money off them so they could have sex with an underage girl.”

Charlotte rushed to confront her ‘friend’ But, she says, the 22-year-old woman convinced her it was a mistake, just a gift.”

It is hard to believe anyone could be so gullible. But now Charlotte was left open to the most terrifying experience of her life. After a visit to Stringfellows club in London, she and the woman went to a Thames-side apartment. Inside were a number of Arabs.

Thousands of pounds were laid out on a table and Charlotte was told she could have it all if she agreed to go to Saudi Arabia with them. “I kept asking why?” she said. “Why would they give me money to go to Saudi Arabia? They kept promising me a fabulous education, great accommodation.

SHE spent every spare moment watching movies. “I remember gazing at Brooke Shields in Blue Lagoon and thinking, ‘I want to be her’,” she sighed.When Charlotte was 15 she was spotted by a photographer who suggested she try modelling, so she joined an agency called Bookings.

“I remember with my first pay cheque I bought two steaks for me and my mum and she cooked them,” she said. “Money had been short and she’d sacrificed a lot. A model friend asked me if I’d ever thought of going into films. She turned out to be a friend of Roman Polanski, who was living in Paris. “We bought a cheap rail and ferry ticket, went to Paris and met him. I think he was entranced with me because I looked like Nastassja Kinski, who he’d directed in Tess.

“I knew Roman had done something wrong in America (he was wanted by the police for sleeping with an under-age girl) but I wasn’t too sure what. Anyway, I was fascinated by him, and I wanted to be his lover.

“He’d already cast me in his film Pirates, so it wasn’t like it was a casting-couch thing where you HAVE to sleep with someone to get the part. I wanted him probably more than he wanted me.”

She was 17 when they first had sex. They remained lovers for six months. “It ended when we went on location to Tunisia. I was one of the few females there. I was far from home, lonely and a little afraid.” And into her insecurity, Polanski lobbed an off-hand, cruel remark that was to bring lasting unhappiness. Charlotte recalled: “Roman would say, ‘You’re gaining weight’. It was ridiculous-I was a thin teenage girl, but I took it seriously and stopped eating. Then I’d overeat, and for years I suffered from bulimia. I know that was the start.”

CHARLOTTE also discovered how inexperienced starlets are often treated like a sexual version of pass the parcel. At the time, Warren Beatty was visiting Tunisia to scout locations for his movie Ishtar. Polanski bet him that he couldn’t get Charlotte into bed. “Roman didn’t think Warren could do it,” said Charlotte, “but the fact is I seduced Warren, not the other way around, so I don’t feel I was misused. He’s a married man now so I’ll draw a veil over it.”

When filming on Pirates was over, Charlotte had more money than she’d ever seen in her life. She bought clothes, shopped, nightclubbed and treated her mother. The casting director for Pirates recommended her for another upcoming film, The Golden Child, starring Eddie Murphy. At last the girl from Finchley was going to Hollywood, and she was still only 19.“It was dreamland,” she smiled. “I’d never been to America, and suddenly I was in the first-class compartment of a 747 heading for LA with a limo to pick me up and take me to the Beverly Wilshire Hotel.

“The Golden Child was set in Tibet, and I actually thought I was going there.“It was my first lesson that so much of Hollywood is illusion-Tibet was to be a set at Paramount, with a little location shooting at a ski resort called Mammoth Mountain five hours from LA.

“They spent so much money re-creating Tibet in California it would have been cheaper to actually fly to the country.”

Suddenly Charlotte had ‘arrived’. Everbody wanted to know her and, apparently, everyone was her best friend. She was still only 19 and about to meet Charlie Sheen, one of Hollywood’s great lovers. “It started with an amazing coincidence,” she said. “On the flight over to LA I’d been reading US magazine, and there was Charlie listed as one of Hollywood’s 20 most eligible bachelors. I said to the flight attendant, ‘I think I’ll go out with him when I get there’.”

I believe there was a kind of backlash in California’s Justice stemming from the Manson murders that included Polanski’s beautiful American wife Sharon Tate and unborn child, and his friends.

As far as California Justice and the press were concerned, Polanski was guilty because he was married to Sharon Tate who had been brutally murdered, and because he had made films (not his own original written material) that had gone so far as to show a devil having sex with a woman.

I believe the World’s press and Californian law enforcement were confused by Roman Polanski’s excellent visual portrayal of the devil having sex with a woman in Rosemary’s Baby, the horrifying Manson murders and 10 years later confused the devil with Roman Polanski himself.

Los Angeles Prosecutors and other human beings are not very bright sometimes and seem unable to distinguish between the character of a person who is telling a story and the subject matter of that story.

Los Angeles prosecutors are looking for modus operandi and may try to equate dark subject matter of a movie such as Rosemary’s Baby, with the person who is telling and directing the story in a magnificent way.

But this correlation between storyteller and story is not an absolute and is not a definite indication of the storyteller’s character.

So then Polanski was made out to be the devil for having sex with an underage girl in California, with the devil’s attributes assigned to Polanski through using Samantha, her mother, and Charlotte Lewis’s help, even though all of this dehumanization of Roman Polanski and his transformation into a devil is not justified at all.

Throughout time it has always been that before others do brutal harm to someone, the person is dehumanized. And this should stop now in Roman Polanski’s case – whether unconscious or not!!!!

“This reminds me of an earlier crime against Roman Polanski, another bait and switch incident that Polanski had faced in Poland after the Second World war where Roman Polanski nearly lost his life to a serial murderer who lured Polanski under the ground to steal his bicycle and who nearly killed Polanski in the process.

It seems that Samantha and her mother Susan Galley, the California Judge Laurence J. Rittenband, Los Angeles prosecutor David Wells, 9th Circuit Judge Trott, Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley and his office 33 years later plus actress Charlotte Lewis have wanted to steal Polanski’s fame, good name and his money, and his freedom all for a casual sexual encounter for which Roman Polanski was not entirely responsible.

I first thought because the Swiss Justice Official decided to announce on American Independence day, July 4th 2010 that a Swiss decision is imminent regarding Roman Polanski that this may hint at INDEPENDENCE 4 ROMAN POLANSKI, that the Swiss will announce on 7/8/2010

in Europe – July 8th 2010 – THAT ROMAN POLANSKI HAS GAINED HIS INDEPENDENCE FROM CALIFORNIA JUSTICE, and that the Swiss will not extradite Roman Polanski to U.S.A.

It would make sense that the Swiss would free Roman Polanski on 7/8/ 2010 if they have any guts at all, and if this is their decision, since this date bears similarity to the date that Roman Polanski first asserted his independence from California’s and its form of “Justice” by leaving Los Angeles on 2/1/78.

Of course this might be total wishful thinking on my part, But I thought I would put it out there anyway, since it would take Swiss guts to do what I have suggested. And I dare not think of the other alternative...

The extradition decision is coming at 2 pm Swiss Time for Roman Polanski

The Swiss government says it will make an announcement Monday July 12, 2010 about Roman Polanski's extradition to the United States for a 1977 sex case. The government says Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf will hold a news conference in the capital Bern at 2 p.m. (1200 GMT; 8 a.m. EDT) "on the matter of the Roman Polanski extradition decision."

I was hoping the Swiss would do the right thing for Roman Polanski and they have!!! I liked that Switzerland also invoked what it called the “public order” — a lofty notion meaning that governments should ensure their citizens are safe from arbitrary abuse of the law.

******************************************

July 12, 2010 Polanski free, Swiss reject US extradition request

GSTAAD, Switzerland – In a stunning ruling, Roman Polanski was declared a free man on Monday — no longer confined to house arrest after Swiss authorities rejected a U.S. request for his extradition because of a 32-year-old sex conviction.

Switzerland, which arrested the 76-year-old Polanski in 2009 blamed U.S. authorities, citing a possible “fault in the U.S. extradition request.”The United States failed to provide confidential testimony to refute defense arguments the filmmaker had actually served his sentence before fleeing Los Angeles three decades ago, Widmer-Schlumpf said.

Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley said his office will try again to have Polanski extradited if he is arrested in another country with a favorable extradition treaty.

Beyond the legal issue, the extradition request was complicated and diplomatically sensitive because of Polanski’s status as a cultural icon in France and Poland, where he holds dual citizenship, and his history as a Holocaust survivor whose first wife Sharon Tate was murdered in 1969 by followers of cult leader Charles Manson in California.

France,does not extradite its own citizens and Polanski has had little trouble traveling throughout Europe — and stayed away from Britain.

The U.S. cannot appeal the decision, but Polanski is still a fugitive in the United States.

In Los Angeles, Cooley, who is running for state attorney general, called the decision a “disservice to justice and other victims as a whole.” He accused the Swiss of using the issue of the confidential testimony as an excuse to set Polanski free.

“To justify their finding to deny extradition on an issue that is unique to California law regarding conditional examination of a potentially unavailable witness is a rejection of the competency of the California courts,” Cooley said. “The Swiss could not have found a smaller hook on which to hang their hat.”

The decision drew cheers and jeers on both sides of the Atlantic.Widmer-Schlumpf, the Swiss justice minister, said the decision was “not about deciding whether Polanski is guilty or not guilty., and said extradition had to be rejected “considering the persisting doubts concerning the presentation of the facts of the case.”In justifying the decision, Switzerland also invoked what it called the “public order” — a lofty notion meaning that governments should ensure their citizens are safe from arbitrary abuse of the law.The Justice Ministry cited the fact that U.S. authorities hadn’t pursued Polanski in Switzerland previously. It also stressed that the victim, who long ago publicly identified herself, has joined in Polanski’s bid for dismissal.

It is sad that the American press do not give us both sides of the story but the Swiss do.

Swiss legal experts say that Switzerland has overall made a pragmatic and correct decision in not extraditing film director Roman Polanski to the United States.

Swiss Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf said the decision had been taken after Washington’s refusal to give access to confidential documents.

“I think in the end we can say that the decision is correct and it makes sense,” Peter Cosandey, a former Zurich prosecutor with expertise in international assistance matters.

Cosandey said the move was based on two grounds, with the main one being “a possible defect” in the US extradition request.

Switzerland wanted the transcript of former Los Angeles prosecutor Roger Gunson, who was in charge of the case in the 1970s, which deals with the question of whether Polanski had already served his sentence.

“That’s an important question because if Polanski has already served his sentence then there is no basis any more for a criminal case and as a consequence for an extradition request,” Cosandey said.

The second, more auxiliary reason, concerns the concept of protection of confidence according to public international law. Here the argument is that although the Polanski case dated back more than 30 years, the arrest warrant was only issued around five years ago. The question is why, Cosandey said.

“So there was no extradition request until September 2009 even though the US authorities must have been aware of Polanski’s travels not only in Switzerland but also in other countries,” he said.

“Polanski was never caught at a border control, so the Swiss government argues that Polanski must have been confident that nobody was after him when he accepted this invitation to the Zurich film festival.”

Stefan Heimgartner, an expert in international legal assistance at Zurich University wondered whether the missing documents were really that crucial for the decision, and also raised doubts over the US’ interest in criminally prosecuting Polanski over the past 33 years.

US disappointmentIn the US, the Department of justice officials have said they thought the extradition request was completely supported by the facts and law.

It cannot legally appeal the Swiss decision, but the arrest warrant remains active.

“The United States believes that the rape of a 13-year-old child by an adult is a crime, and we continue to pursue justice in this case," said State Department spokesman Philip Crowley.

The views of Los Angeles legal experts, quoted on the agencies, ranged from seeing the Swiss move as a slap in the face, to those who thought Cooley’s office had left it too late to prosecute Polanski.

Cooley has accused the Swiss of exploiting a quirk of California law to set the director free. In doing so, he also says the country has rejected the American courts’ competency.

"The Swiss could not have found a smaller hook on which to hang their hat," the Los Angeles District Attorney said in a statement.